The TSA's Infamous 'Behavior Detection' In Action: Mandatory 'Chats' About Every Detail Of Your Trip

from the worst-chatbot-ever dept

The TSA's "behavior detection" program continues to roll out, unimpeded by accusations of racial profiling or the fact that 725,000 travelers have been questioned without turning up a single terrorist. This extra step in the ongoing, ever-expanding War at Home on Terror is bringing the fun of living in a dictatorship to the unsuspecting citizens of a federal republic.

Traveling into or out of the country used to be the one of the few situations in which American citizens could expect extra questions to be thrown their way. Apparently, we're now defending internal borders to prevent terrorists from crossing state lines unimpeded. In addition to long-running security theatrics already in place at our nations' airports, TSA agents are now throwing a barrage of instrusive questions at flyers as they travel from state to state.

The agent then turned to me with grin that was a bit perky for even my taste given the early hour. "So where are you folks off to?" he energetically inquired.

I like to think that I'm a friendly person, so I answered him, expecting a brief innocuous exchange about the Washington DC heat and the scourge of Capitol Hill gridlock. Instead, the agent responded to my answer with a barrage of questions about where in Vermont we had stayed, how long we had traveled, and why we had traveled there. I could feel a suspicious expression involuntarily creep across my face. The New Englander inside me was screaming "you don't know this person from a hole in the wall and you certainly don't want to divulge to him the details of your family vacation!" And yet it seemed that the more discomfort I expressed, the more persistent the agent's questioning became, following us down the line, grilling me unrelentingly about our vacation plans and baggage status.

Maybe the TSA agent was just being friendly? The writer's husband suggested as much. Despite the fact that the word "friendly" has rarely, if ever, been used in the same sentence as "TSA agent," there's always the small possibility that it's just some welcome humanity showing through the officious facade.

Here's the problem, though. It's nearly impossible for the average human being to chat normally with someone who has the power to indefinitely detain or otherwise screw up their travel plans for any number of nebulous "violations." There's no such thing as an innocuous or friendly question when it comes to an agency with a reputation for acting irresponsibly, vindictively and ignorantly, depending on the situation. No one is ever going to feel comfortable just handing out additional personal information, no matter how anecdotal, to someone who can use any misstep as an excuse to search, detain or otherwise inconvenience anyone and everyone.

Then she wanted to know where home was. That's when the mental alarms went off and I realized I was being interrogated by Big Brother in drag. I asked her why the federal government needed to know where I was going and what I would be doing. She explained that the questions were part of a new security "pilot program."

I then told her I am an American citizen, traveling within my own country, and I wasn't breaking any laws. That's all the federal government needed to know, and I wasn't going to share any more. Not because I had anything to hide. It was because we live in a free country where innocent people are supposedly protected from unwarranted government intrusion and harassment.

At that point the agent yelled out, "We have another refusal." One of my bags was seized and I was momentarily detained and given a hand-swab, which I believe was to test for residue from bomb-making materials.

I passed the bomb test and was told I could move on, but I hung around a moment and told everyone within listening range what I thought about this terrifying experience.

Notice how quickly asserting your rights gets you branded as a troublemaker by those "protecting" the airport. The intrusive questioning is the TSA's "behavior detection" at work. So far, it seems to be best at detecting racists within the TSA's ranks and maintaining an overly-close relationship with other law enforcement agencies.

This interrogation of citizens who have never crossed a border isn't necessarily a new thing, but in the past it was definitely an exception rather than the rule. Crossing national borders would usually result in some form of questioning beyond "Are you an American citizen?" Outside of our airports, the Department of Homeland Security is partnering with the Border Patrol to set up checkpoints with the intent of stopping and searching vehicles traveling internal highways 40-50 miles from any border crossing. This falls within the "Constitution Free Zone" where the courts have permitted these "administrative" checkpoints to operate, but solely for the purpose of protecting the nation's borders. They are not to be used for other law enforcement purposes, like conducting general drug searches.

As can be expected, the checkpoints have become "general purpose." Suspicionless searches are now the norm, with many drivers being routed to the "secondary" for additional questioning. None of this is necessary, useful or even particularly legal, but they continue to operate simply because US citizens are generally cooperative, even when their rights are being violated. If you don't cooperate with your own violation, as in the case with Gunn above, and the video below, the ones doing the violating (under the auspices of "security") treat the assertive citizen like he's being unreasonable and possibly a threat.

While the US is far from an actual police state, the encroachment on our rights shows no sign of abating. The TSA defends its severely flawed "behavior detection" system as being a crucial and useful part of law enforcement as a whole. Defenders of DHS checkpoints are quick to cite criminal actions by non-citizens and the general hazy threat of "terrorism" in support of their activities. No one really expects anyone in power to say "Wait, this is going too far," and start rolling back authority and legislation. But someone in power should really start questioning why it became acceptable in this country, a nation built on individual freedom, to interrogate citizens simply because they're traveling from one internal destination to another by vehicle.

Security as tight as a sieve...

And yet, with the ramp up in security, we still get stories like this (warning:auto-play video w/ article) showing up. I mean seriously - a passport that has been expired for a year and the woman was allowed to saunter on through security, likely just because her face matched her id. Yeah - real secure there... lol

Re: Re: Security as tight as a sieve...

I believe his point is that if they can't even catch something as minor yet obvious as an expired passport how can we expect them to do anything about something as threatening yet nebulous as terrorism? Its been shown time and again that they are ineffective but the solutions seem to be to get even more intrusive and overbearing without being more effective, mostly just to look like they are doing something to justify their existence.

I think at this point in time we have to accept that violating even more of peoples rights is not effective and that terrorism as a threat is overblown. But between the fact that people fail to understand risk and the government is good at keeping people scared we continue to march in the direction of the US becoming more and more of a police state with no benefits to show from it.

It keeps going down the same road: If you have nothing to hide, there is no issue. If you have something to hide (or just want to be a prick about it) then there is always other ways to deal with determining if you are safe to travel or not.

You bitched about the scanners, you bitched about the screeners... I am assuming you will only be happy when air travel in the US is as risky as standing in a Syrian street with a target on your head.

Re: Re:

Re:

That's one helluva argument you've got there: 'If you've got nothing to hide, there is no issue.' By that same measure, we should always and everywhere be subjected to unlawful searches, interrogation, harassment and surveillance.

Imagine if you're just driving along when suddenly an officer or TSA agent stops you, asks you for ID and requests to have your vehicle searched. Or imagine if you're sitting at home, relaxing, doing whatever it is you do when there's a knock at the door. You open it and there's several officers and bomb-sniffing dogs standing there and they ask if they can come in and search your house.

This is the sort of behavior you're condoning.

This is not Nazi Germany and this is not the U.S.S.R. -- this is the United States of America.

Re: Re:

There's no point, really. The guy is an authoritarian and honestly believes that a police state is desirable. It's an emotional stance based on fear, not a logical one. As a great man once said, you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into.

Re: Re:

Vog, let me say this: Ben Franklin didn't live in our times. Quoting someone from a few hundred years ago and thinking it's relevant is probably the best "head in the sand" action you can take.

I guess you don't get it: Terrorists and criminals use the "freedom" in the system to avoid detection. The use it to avoid getting caught, to avoid searches, to avoid having to explain their actions.

Roadside inspections, when carried out for ALL cars going down that road seem perfectly reasonable to me, no different than running a radar trap. What harm is caused to me rights (being asked what I am up to in general terms, perhaps having someone look in my trunk) is nothing compared to the freedom lost when some nutjob blows up my place or work, or when the neighborhood I live in gets turned into a giant crack den or illegal immigrant flop house.

Absolute freedom is like absolute intelligence: neither really exists. Ben Franklin spoke from a time that just doesn't have the issues we have today. You cannot keep wishing it's 1776 again.

Re: Re: Re:

Ben Franklin didn't live in our times.

You're absolutely right.

Mr. Franklin and his comrades had to fight the world's greatest superpower at the time to be free, who had the world's largest navy and army. Now we're the greatest superpower, and we're giving up all of our rights against a few hundred crazy people in caves.

Mr. Franklin and the other Founding Fathers decided that when the US was a newborn and frail country, that it was more important to protect our civil liberties, even when we were the most vulnerable. Now that we're the most powerful country, and we are the least vulnerable, it's time to give up those civil liberties?

Re: Re: Re:

If you want to sacrifice your own rights for your own safety, go right ahead. You can start by giving up air travel.

But if you want me to give up my rights for your safety, you're going to have to give a better argument, something more persuasive than "I'm afraid there might be a terrorist in my bedroom closet, so you have to have a police camera in your shower".

Seriously, "when some nutjob blows up my place or work"? Does that happen to you often? In reality, I mean. As for your neighborhood turning into a flophouse, I don't see how it matters whether the tenants are citizens, or why you deserve protection from fluctuations in the real estate market. Your fears are irrational, your remedies are voodoo and you are much too keen to give up freedoms that were damned hard to acquire.

Re: Re: Re:

You are again assuming without any evidence to back it up what-so-ever that these tactics actually make you safer. Why do you think that? Surely you must have a reason other than 'because it looks like it does,' right? Where's your evidence of this making anyone here safer?

Only after you've established that this shit actually works can we talk about the trade-off between basic freedoms and additional safety.

1776 wasn't that different from today. They too had a government that wanted to empower their agents to invade the citizens private spaces to assuage their own fear.

Re: Re: Re:

"I guess you don't get it: Terrorists and criminals use the "freedom" in the system to avoid detection. The use it to avoid getting caught, to avoid searches, to avoid having to explain their actions."

Then, to be absolutely sure we're catching all the "terrorists and criminals", we should probably get rid of all this pesky "freedom", huh? I mean, it sure sounds like expecting a reasonable right to privacy is pretty unpatriotic when you have all this theoretical terrorism to consider. What's stopping us from mandatory TSA strip searches? What's stopping police from pulling over random motorists on highways to ask them where they're going and what they're doing? I mean, as long as they're either stopping everyone or a random selection of everyone, that's okay, right?

Those who see nothing but knives in the shadows will jump at their own. The sad thing is I completely understand and that makes it all the more sickening.

It's especially telling that you consider Franklin's quote to be out-of-date and irrelevant to today's society; I guess I'll just shred this Constitution while I'm at it. From the looks of it, you won't mind.

Re: Re: Re:

I would think that Ben Franklin's time was more dangerous than ours. He lived when much of his live involved foreign armies invading his land. Times when other nations bribed/persuaded Native Americans to sow terror by attacking colonists. He lived in times when you couldn't tell if a fellow colonist had independence or Torie inclinations. You couldn't be sure who was secretly supporting the enemy. I personally have a lot more trust and less fear today than I would back then. I see much less justification for the police state now than in his time.

Re: Re: Re:

Our social contract is based on the agreements made between our founding fathers. If you no longer honor those agreements, then the social contract is null and void and we are no longer a country. At this point, no laws matter.

Re: Re: Re:

I am sick of hearing that these are different times. Roadside inspection of all cars is definitely not "perfectly reasonable". Radar traps really aren't either. The word "trap" should give it away.

How are these roadside inspections going to stop the nutjobs, crack dens, or the flophouse? The only way they could come close is to have 24x7 checkpoints on every public street. Maybe I don't want someone to look in my trunk -- maybe my care bear collection is in there, and I don't want anyone to see it. Perhaps I keep my sex toys there. There are plenty of legal things that I might have that I do not want a record kept of. Or, maybe I am in a hurry and I don't want to be delayed.

I am perfectly aware of what happened on 9/11. I was at work in the Pentagon when it happened. But, Mr. Anonymous Coward, I am not willing to trade the things that made this country great just so you can have the illusion that you are a little safer.

Re: Re: Re:

You will send us another note from the land of the lost some time won't you?

I think I'd rather risk being blown up at this point than to live in the place you think is safe enough to drive down the road and purchase your ice cream cone.

Freedom reigns as long as it's allowed to or as long as we demand it? You need to be checked to ensure you're enjoying your freedom in an authorized manner? I think you've lived a sheltered life. That or you've inadvertently been born to the wrong country. Or you simply like being on your knees.

Re: Re: Re:

Quoting someone from a few hundred years ago and thinking it's relevant is probably the best "head in the sand" action you can take.

So every time some lawyer quotes from the U.S. Constitution (words written hundreds of years ago) to demonstrate why his clients rights were violated, he has his head in the sand?

Terrorists and criminals use the "freedom" in the system to avoid detection.

So to win against the terrorist, who are trying to take away our freedom... we must give up our freedom so the terrorists don't win???

"When freedom is outlawed, only terrorists will have freedom."

Why won't law enforcement give up all their guns, since all "gun shootings" are done with guns. Yea, that will solve the gun problem... NOT! We would need to take away all guns from everyone to solve that problem, just like you would need to take away all freedom to solve the "terrorist" problem, which is exactly what they want!

We don't give in to terrorist demands by giving in to terrorist demands!

If you personally want to let someone search your trunk without probable or legitimate legal cause and give up your rights, that is your choice. In this country, others still have the legal right to say no to "security theater".

Re: Re:

Franklin and his ilk were the terrorists of their time
They didn’t want to pay taxes
They felt they should have more say than any other citizen at the time
so they committed a illegal terrorist war to get freedom by murdering British citizens to instill thier own way of life on others
guess it is how you look at it huh?

Re:

Re:

Hmmm. You mentioned a Syrian street. Why? Seems that you know something that we don't and you are not willing to reveal. Have you ever been to Syria? No, wrong question. When last time you visited Syria and why? Please tell me about everyone you met there. And what's that in your carry-on? You say a toothbrush? So it seems that your Syrian friends taught you how to sharpen a toothbrush pole and use it as a weapon instantly. Seems to me that you belong to a no-fly list, but for know you cannot board until you undergo a full cavity search and 4-hour interrogation.

Re:

eh? Fuck you. Some people are adverse to confrontation, or merely the potential for it, under any circumstances. Some people do not like other people that they do not know or desire to know.

Some people consider freedom of movement a natural right which would include unchallenged movement within public spaces.

The only thing risky right now are ankle grabbers like yourself allowing this country, the US, to be allowed to creep slowly and assuredly into the authoritarian category.

It's not like we have an ongoing state of guerrilla warfare now is it? Rebels? An impending invasion perhaps? No, I didn't think so either.

I, for one, am not willing to die for a country that is no longer willing to let me live. That would indicate that this country is not the same country that I was living in a mere decade ago.

What you're alluding to in your pissed off little rant is not, by any logical measure, freedom.

I will be happy when people like you are called out for being chumps. I would be happy if there were truly a state of ongoing threat that could possibly justify interrogation and checkpoints based upon the mere movement of people.

Safety does not equal acquiescence to the whims of a government corrupt with an intent to impose and require submission.

Re: Re:

Precisely. The so-called border patrol is really just law enforcement flexing their muscles, testing the waters to observe people's response, not to 'look for terrorists' as they suggest. If these people had their way, they'd bring their faux-security theatre everywhere, from roads to highways, shops to schools. They'd bring it to your front door if they could get away with it.

Re:

Think about this for a moment. Would an actual terrorist want to draw attention to themselves by saying "go fuck yourself" to the TSA?

Of course not. An actual terrorist would be as compliant as necessary to draw as little attention to themselves as possible.

Of course, no one bitches about metal detectors. The only reason we bitch about the naked scanners is because they're a horrendous invasion of personal privacy and they just might give some people cancer but they certainly won't stop any terrorists. Every attempted terrorist attack on airplanes in the past decade involved people flying INTO the US from OUTSIDE of it, where there are no naked scanners. There's no point in naked scanning a terrorist already in the US because - surprise! - they're already in the US!

That reminds me of the liquid ban. Once again, if someone has liquid explosives and they're already in the US, it's too damn late to stop them from blowing shit up. Same thing with the shoes, if you have a bomb in your shoe while in the US, it's too damn late to stop them from blowing shit up. Oh and by the way, both the liquid bomb plot and the shoe bomb plot were launched from outside the US.

On to the screeners. I have no problem with screeners asking generally vague questions. When they want specifics, like addresses or names, they can go fuck themselves.

Lastly, regarding your straw man, no one - and I mean no one - says there should be no security at airports. Do you honestly believe that pre-9/11 airport security was as insecure as standing on the streets of Syria?

Re: Re: [Success!]

Re: ???

"You bitched about the scanners, you bitched about the screeners... I am assuming you will only be happy when air travel in the US is as risky as standing in a Syrian street with a target on your head."

Did I read that analogy correctly?

Ummmm isn't the problem in Syria the government attacking the civilians?

Re:

If you have nothing to hide, there is no issue.

Fair enough. After we go through my stuff, can I head on over to your place so I can go through your personal papers, computers, closets and your wife's underwear drawer? You've got nothing to hide, right AC?

Re:

Re:

If you have nothing to hide, there is no issue

It does keep going down this road because people like you keep forgetting what the fourth amendment is actually for. It's not to 'hide' things when you have something to hide. The text itself explains what it's actually for:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Emphasis mine. Fishing for evidence, no matter how innocent the individual, creates fear. It creates insecurity. The prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure is not there to protect the guilty from prying eyes. It was designed specifically to block broad discretionary authority. It's to protect the right to live in peace and without fear.

You bitched about the scanners, you bitched about the screeners... I am assuming you will only be happy when air travel in the US is as risky as standing in a Syrian street with a target on your head.

This is a false dichotomy and what's more it's based on the assumption that this shenaniganry actually makes us safer which has yet to be demonstrated.

Re:

> If you have nothing to hide, there is no issue.

Yes, that's a favorite saying among my fellow cops. Whenever I hear it, I like to ask them, "If you stopped someone on the side of the road and when you asked if you could search their car, they responded, "Certainly, officer, but only if, after you're done, I can follow you back to your home and search it, go through your personal files, look at your browser history, paw through your wife's panty drawer, and give your kids' rooms a thorough look-over." What would your response be? After all, if you have nothing to hide and you're not doing anything illegal, you should have no problem with a total stranger picking and prying through the most intimate and private aspects of your life, right? On the other hand, if you don't want total strangers invading your personal space, even though you've done nothing wrong, why do you think it's appropriate or even valid to impose that standard on your fellow citizens?

Re:

> If you have nothing to hide, there is no issue

I do have something to hide. I don't *think* I am doing anything illegal, but there are a lot of laws and they are always being re-interpreted. On top of that, I am not a lawyer. So I suspect if someone were to search my house and really wanted to find something, they probably could. I am not sure all my pillows have the tags on them. There may be a few MP3's that I have lost the CD that goes with them. I have decrypted and ripped DVD's that I own. Some cop who needs a bust could plant something. While they are rummaging through my house, somebody could knock over my family heirlooms.

Re:

I wouldn't bother but 1 little thing.

I suggest you watch the Frontline story called "Flying Cheap" then tell me how safe you feel on a plane.
We've got time to terrorize the citizens but not to make sure that they aren't breaking the rules about maintenance and time limits on pilots.

Ah, the East German Stasi and the Romanian Securitatae would be proud. Sounds just like stuff my wife told me about her childhood in Eastern Europe. America, be proud of your glorious slide into totalitarianism!

Re:

Ah, the East German Stasi and the Romanian Securitatae would be proud.

I had a similar thought.

And the typical self-denial statement "While the US is far from an actual police state" should more accurately written "While the US does not yet appear to be the worst a police state can be (after all, who knows what is in-the-works and we are on a very slippery slope as evidenced within)".

Re: Re: Politzia

Let's not be silly!

The USA is the finest possible police state in existence! The kind where the blind-sheep citizens bleet in little circles and crow loudly about their 'freedoms' while the despotic fascist regime does whatever it wants.

Were I the intentional creator of such a perfect Machiavellian machination, I would be immensely proud.

Ok, I know what these agents are going for. The techniques they are attempting to copy are better than any expensive cancer machines that can't tell a fat man from a dude strapped to the nines with explosives...

But... they don't seem to be trained... AT ALL. That's not how you question someone, you don't berate a person until they feel uncomfortable, you sure as hell don't turn a grinch smirk at them before asking questions.

You are supposed to just strike like lightning where your target doesn't expect and say something like
"What are you doing here?"
"Is that bag your bag?

You ask quick, point blank questions, and move on if the person doesn't react normally to being harassed by insane questions. Someone going "wtf is your problem?" or even the example where the person told him, very eloquently, "Go F yourself" is a NORMAL REACTION and indicator that the person is good to go.

They have no flipping clue what they are doing. They are acting like creepers, they clearly haven't been trained, and when they get the green light they act like it's a bright red warning light and GO AFTER THE WRONG PEOPLE.

Really, I can't stress this enough, the person did everything wrong, wrong questions, wrong delivery did everything to make a normal citizen to act in a way that a terrorist would act in that situation but still received a clear indicator that the person passed with flying colors and MARKED THEM AS FAILING.

Re: Re:

Empowering idiots are fine, you can train a bear to ride a unicycle, the job is rather simple. You just need to freaking train them.

Also you need oversight. Bare minimum they should be recording who they talk to, reactions received, questions asked, etc. Simple form to fill out where they check off boxes after each person. It forces them to self check themselves. If self checks don't work that's why there are managers/supervisors. ffs, they can spend tons of money on equipment but they can't spend cash on the basics.

Government spending at it's finest, build a pyramid by starting at the top.

Re:

I had an experience similar to, but better than, the TSA interrogations that people are going through. A cop stopped me (legitimately....I don't know how to use a blinker) and we chatted for a few minutes while he was waiting on my license and registration to come back. He then told me he was part of some anti-somethingorother taskforce and asked me a few questions. Do you have any automatic weapons in your car? No. Do you have any long bladed knives? Yes, a few swords in my trunk....I'm coming back from a demonstration and taking them home. There were a few more questions like that, then out of nowhere: "Any bombs in the trunk or rocket launchers under the hood?"

I paused for a moment, glanced towards the hood then back towards the trunk. "I don't think so....not that I recall anyway....maybe we should check?" We both cracked up laughing and I got out of a no blinker ticket.

That officer was trained on how to ask things like that. TSA officers apparently aren't. I didn't feel like he intruded upon me. I felt like he got to the point, found out what he wanted to know, and let me move on after doing his job.

A terrorist would call that a win-win.

"Any bombs in the trunk or rocket launchers under the hood?"

I paused for a moment, glanced towards the hood then back towards the trunk. "I don't think so....not that I recall anyway....maybe we should check?" We both cracked up laughing and I got out of a no blinker ticket."

And that's how a terrorist would have done it. Open the hood - kaboom. Otherwise, detection evaded.

Re: A terrorist would call that a win-win.

When you ask a point blank question out of the blue without warning your brain is processing a truthful response before you can consciously control it... unless you are specifically trained for this.

However, anyone that is typically going to blow up a plane along with themselves aren't the most cerebral people on the planet and if they could be trained easily for this they probably would have gone "hey, blowing myself up is a pretty stupid idea"

They won't say "yea, I want to blow shit up." but their first reaction isn't a flippant response either being a jerk or cracking a joke naturally. They'll get incredibly nervous or trip over their words. Some people do it anyways due to the odd nature of the question but the general feeling is more like "why would you ask something so stupid, I can't even fathom doing that."

Re: Re: A terrorist would call that a win-win.

They'll get incredibly nervous or trip over their words. Some people do it anyways due to the odd nature of the question

I would absolutely react with quiet panic and stumble over my words. Not because of the odd nature of the question so much as the obvious meaning of the question -- "I think you're a terrorist" -- and the implication that I'm about to have the crap beat out of me.

Re: Re:

Do not waive your rights. Most judges will allow you to waive your rights unknowingly and inadvertently—it's your duty to understand and assert your rights. When you're talking to a cop on the side of the road, it's not a social chit-chat: The cop is well-trained to get your consent and waiver.

Re: Re: Re:

> So you consented to waive your fourth amendment
> right against unreasonable searches.

> Do not waive your rights. Most judges will
> allow you to waive your rights unknowingly
> and inadvertently—it's your duty to understand
> and assert your rights. When you're talking
> to a cop on the side of the road, it's not
> a social chit-chat: The cop is well-trained
> to get your consent and waiver.

It's not like you can't reassert your rights at any time. Just because you waive them, doesn't mean they're waived for good.

If you were joking around and didn't really intend a waiver, and suddenly the cop is like, "Okay, pop the trunk so I can look around", you can still revoke the consent at any time-- even min-search-- and the cop is required to stop searching.

Re: Re: Re:

Looks to me like the agents were being quite polite, and it was the person filming the stop who appears to be itching for a "fight".

Yes, I understand the "right to travel" under the Constitution, but even it is subject to reasonable regulation associated with a compelling government interest using reasonable means consistent with that interest.

Re:

The problem is, the "itch to fight" is a very normal and American response.

Being an insufferable prick to being bothered is NORMAL in this country.

These are psychological indicators that the person is who he says he is and very much on the side of "Highly unlikely this dick cares about anything or anyone around them, certainly not enough to blow up a plane."

Re:

Using that retarded logic, anybody can be subjected to interrogation while driving because of vague 'government interests.' As for the driver, he has every right to be upset for being questioned like that. Law enforcement's sole purpose is to protect and serve the public by making sure they upholding the law, not to treat random citizens like potential criminals.

Re: Re:

Law enforcement's sole purpose is to protect and serve the public by making sure they upholding the law, not to treat random citizens like potential criminals.

How do you square that against sobriety checkpoints? They've been declared Constitutional.

Not picking a fight but clearly the government's interest in protecting and serving the public extends to using these checkpoints to enforce drunk driving laws. Could the same argument not be made here in the case of illegal immigration?

Re: Re: Re:

Busybodies grab your hatchets!

Our country was settled by religious extremists and moral crusaders. We even have a special holiday dedicated to them. We call it Thanksgiving. These people were on the fore front of a number of moral crusades including the temperance movement.

We still have a strange and pathalogical relationship with alchohol. Banning it and then un-Banning it and subsequent Blue Laws are all artifacts of this.

Re: Busybodies grab your hatchets!

Does "right" mean legal? I don't like sobriety checkpoints due to the delays it causes, but I like the idea of friends and family members being killed by a drunk driver even less. I think one point not mentioned here is whether you should have a different expectation driving on a public road or in a public space than in one's own home. I think the answer is clearly yes.

Re: Re: Busybodies grab your hatchets!

Does "right" mean legal?

"Right" and "legal" are two different and distinct things.

Even the legality of sobriety checkpoints. In my state, they aren't legal. And I agree that they shouldn't be.

The public vs private space isn't the issue here. I can (and should be able to) walk down a public street without being subject to searches by the police without cause. That it's a public street doesn't enter into it. Likewise, and for the exact same reasons, I should be able to drive down a public street without being subject to searches without cause.

That sobriety checkpoints are legal in some places is in direct opposition with the clear intent of the constitution.

Re: Re: Re: Busybodies grab your hatchets!

Even the legality of sobriety checkpoints. In my state, they aren't legal.

Just to be clear, while some states ban them under their state constitutions- there's no issue with the 4th Amendment. I don't know about the applicability to immigration checkpoints but the logic seems to follow.

"However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Busybodies grab your hatchets!

there's no issue with the 4th Amendment

That supreme court ruling does not say there's no 4th amendment issue. It says the opposite: that the checkpoints are an infringement. It just argues that the 4th amendment violation is counterbalanced by "the public good" and therefore is declared constitutional by fiat.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Busybodies grab your hatchets!

Sure, I even quoted Chief Justice Rehnquist, who said, "the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement."

So it's a minor infringement and I think consistent with my earlier argument that public concerns in public space mean a lesser degree of 4th Amendment protection than you're entitled to in your own home.

Re: Re: Re:

"How do you square that against sobriety checkpoints? They've been declared Constitutional.

Not picking a fight but clearly the government's interest in protecting and serving the public extends to using these checkpoints to enforce drunk driving laws. Could the same argument not be made here in the case of illegal immigration?"

First of all, there is a fine line between enforcement and harassment. Should every single person who walks into a convenience store be subjected to a full-body search, y'know, to ensure public safety or whatever other nonsensical justification for violating people's rights? The police can wait somewhere in the shadows until they see somebody speeding or swerving around on the road before pulling them over, the idea being that the officer is responding to suspicious behavior. That's far different than essentially needing law enforcement's permission in order to travel to and fro on the streets, just because they're "looking for drunk drivers" or whatever.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The police can wait somewhere in the shadows until they see somebody speeding or swerving around on the road before pulling them over, the idea being that the officer is responding to suspicious behavior. That's far different than essentially needing law enforcement's permission in order to travel to and fro on the streets, just because they're "looking for drunk drivers" or whatever."

They can and do set up checkpoint and stop all cars and talk to all drivers in the name of finding drunk drivers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"They can and do set up checkpoint and stop all cars and talk to all drivers in the name of finding drunk drivers."

I'm well aware of that. However, they're just one small step away from shifting from 'looking for drunk drivers' to 'looking for guns, contraband, explosives, terrorists, etc.' Yes, law enforcement is responsible for public safety but that should never be construed as justification for trampling people's rights.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

At many of the schools in inner-city areas near where I live, students are required to enter the building by passing through metal detectors. These security checkpoints are manned by police officers and have cut down on weapons being introduced into the schools and corresponding violence.

What is interesting is that until a certain grade level, attendance at school is compulsory- unlike going to an airport or traveling down a public highway. I don't hear any bitching about screening for guns and other weapons in schools- how is this different?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

OK, perhaps it's because gun violence is less common where you live. In private and suburban schools (where my children attend) there are no metal detectors because weapons are not an issue. In city schools they are very common and those folks seem to feel that the safety of their children is more important than their "privacy" rights.

Again, there is a trade-off between security and privacy rights, the argument is all about degrees. The douchenozzle in the video would have a much more valid point if the checkpoint was in Iowa than 40 miles from the Mexican border. Likewise a affluent suburban school district with no history of weapons and violence is in a different place than a violent inner city school district. A drunk driving checkpoint during the morning rush hour would be absurd, but not at 3 a.m. on January 1st. It's all about the situation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"At many of the schools in inner-city areas near where I live, students are required to enter the building by passing through metal detectors. These security checkpoints are manned by police officers and have cut down on weapons being introduced into the schools and corresponding violence.

What is interesting is that until a certain grade level, attendance at school is compulsory- unlike going to an airport or traveling down a public highway. I don't hear any bitching about screening for guns and other weapons in schools- how is this different?"

Gee, I don't know. Let's all just live in a state of constant fear and anxiety, with checkpoints at every major intersection and border, dispatch an officer at every entrance along with screeners and bomb-sniffing dogs. Nevermind your Constitutional rights. Let's roll out a full-scale fascist police state. Then you'll never have to worry about a thing.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

First of all, there is a fine line between enforcement and harassment. Should every single person who walks into a convenience store be subjected to a full-body search, y'know, to ensure public safety or whatever other nonsensical justification for violating people's rights?

There's a difference between a privately owned entity like a 7-11 and an airport or public highway.

The police can wait somewhere in the shadows until they see somebody speeding or swerving around on the road before pulling them over, the idea being that the officer is responding to suspicious behavior. That's far different than essentially needing law enforcement's permission in order to travel to and fro on the streets, just because they're "looking for drunk drivers" or whatever.

I don't view these check points much differently than USCG safety inspections. The Coast Guard will routinely stop boats for the purpose of assuring that they're meeting safety standards, in the name of public safety and assuring that boats are compliant with those laws. At some point, when you walk into public space your absolute privacy rights give some ground to the interests of the general public. The difficulty is finding the appropriate balance point- which is at the root of the discussion here.

That said, the guy in the video is a dickhead who harms his cause by acting like a total asshole.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"There's a difference between a privately owned entity like a 7-11 and an airport or public highway."

Are you or are you not an American? If so, you are protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Many of our ancestors shed their blood for those very things, so don't take them lightly or you're in danger of losing them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That said, the guy in the video is a dickhead who harms his cause by acting like a total asshole.

Still, he's an American asshole, as people have been trying to explain here. Assholery is a great way to invite physical abuse from another primate, but no legal grounds to curtail his legal rights.

It's the act of searching with no probable cause that, IMO, stomps all over our 4th amendment protections (albeit, legally abridged with precedence). Again being a self-absorbed asshole in America is probable cause of being an all too common American, nothing more.

You've mentioned before how polite the agents seem to behave, and I agree. However this is nonsequitur in a legal sense as well as in a real sense. Consider in parting this line (that should proabably be in the public domain even though it might not be, I don't know its just too fucking confusing):

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> The Coast Guard will
> routinely stop boats
> for the purpose of
> assuring that they're
> meeting safety standards,
> in the name of public
> safety and assuring that
> boats are compliant with
> those laws. At some point,
> when you walk into
> public space your absolute
> privacy rights give some
> ground to the interests
> of the general public.

The vast majority of those boat stops are merely life preserver compliance checks, which has nothing to do with the safety of the public-- if I fall overboard and drown because I had no lifejacket, no one is harmed but me. It's just more nanny-statism, protecting people from themselves, and has no place in a free society.

Re:

Silently and secretly? I don't think so. It's all being done in plain sight, right at the airport, near our borders, at certain bus stops and stop-and-frisk in NY (coming soon to a town/city near you, unless people stand up for their rights).

Re: Re:

"in plain sight" doesn't make it less of an abuse.

I'm quite shocked by this, having travelled in some less than democratic countries, where you see checkpoints in and out of every city within the country, where any clerk can hold you back indefinitely for any reason.

Re: Re:

Yeah, every now and then, here and there some evidence pops up that it's happening and it becomes increasingly difficult to keep it hidden. But i has been going for year now. It's certainly not an actual police state but it's being built like that under the hood.

Re: Re:

No, what I am saying is that the way he goes about it makes him, and by extension his point much less persuasive by acting like an asshole. Just because you can act like a douchebag, doesn't mean you should- particularly when you are trying to make a point.

Re: Re: Re:

His being a douchebag certainly helps to prove his point though. They had no legal right to stop him and ask him that question, if they did he wouldn't have got out of there without answering it especially while he was acting like an asshole.

If law enforcement wants to bully people into giving up their rights I am glad we have bullies like this guy refusing to kowtow to them out of threat of unfair prosecution.

He didn't insult them or anything. He just kept asking the same question, much like they did to him.

Re:

"This guy is an asshole and provocateur. He stages this shit and grandstands."

Assuming that is true, a TSA agent with the proper training and attitude should have been able to recognize that and defuse the situation.

Anyone can act nice and "professional" when everything is going their way. It is how someone deals with an "asshole and provocateur" that manifests true professionals trying to protect and serve or ignorant bullies and bureaucrats. When the chips are down, I have yet to witness anything but the latter in the TSA.

Re:

Even assholes can build awareness to this conditioning process. More people should be assholes when confronted. And more and more people. That you, apparently, are willing to oblige interrogation does not make said interrogation right, proper or justified.

It seems you would rather condemn his actions than to condemn the actions the brought about the situation. I find that submissive not too mention contrary to any entities that claim to wield a beacon of freedom.

Re:

but is he right?
Don't stand up for your rights, you may as well bend over and take that anal cavity search, its just routine procedure, right?
You are free now to carry on shopping at walmart sir, thank you for complying sheeple

Re:

It's funny, the same people complaining about all this questioning and junk-exploring are also arguing to require citizens to produce ID to vote...wtf?

Who are these same people? Everyone I've talked to who thinks that the TSA is invasive also tends to believe that voter ID laws are a solution in search of a non-existent problem (or, more specifically, a thinly veiled attempt at disenfranchising people they don't feel deserve the right to vote)

If you really are upset by this you need to relax

I honestly cannot understand why people would be upset by this pilot program. If you want security instead of security theater, this type of questioning is the ONLY way you're going to get it. Not from metal detectors and x-ray machines, not from body scanners, and not from sniffing dogs. Answering the questions takes 5 minutes out of your life and allows a well trained agent (assuming they are well trained) to assess whether or not a traveler may be a risk. This type of questioning is standard on every flight operated by an Israeli airliner, including domestic flights within Israel. I think the Israelis know a thing or two about security.

I will readily admit that the TSA agents I have encountered do not inspire confidence and most are completely untrained do properly perform this type of questioning. The screeners that work for EL/AL all have military backgrounds where they were trained to identify signs of someone acting suspiciously. Hopefully the TSA is stepping up its game (dramatically) in the hiring and training of agents who are participating in the pilot program.

Will there be agents who abuse their power? Yes. Will there be agents who "profile"? Yes. But that still is better that relying on technology that has proven completely fallible.

Re: If you really are upset by this you need to relax

We're not Israel and therefore don't need to export their brand of security. Make no mistake, this is not creating a secure environment, this is government-created hostility directed at the general public.

Re: If you really are upset by this you need to relax

Thanks for your moderate tone and appeal to logic. Is well-executed questioning the most effective method? Very, very likely. Is screening hardware an immense waste of time and money? Absolutely. But if the question is...

"I honestly cannot understand why people would be upset by this pilot program..."

... then I think you showed us that you know the answer:

"... the TSA agents I have encountered... are completely untrained (to) properly perform this type of questioning."

Please understand that this is why we're upset... a pilot program sans training is no pilot at all, like actors holding a dress rehearsal before the auditions are through.

Re: Re: If you really are upset by this you need to relax

Okay, so maybe I do know why people are upset and just wanted a subject line that would get people to read what I wrote.
;-)

Anyway, I may also be giving the TSA the (admittedly undeserved) benefit of the doubt. Maybe they are starting to learn from their mistakes and are trying to make things right (or less wrong?) going forward. So, therefore, I am assuming (hoping!) that, for purposes of this pilot program, the TSA did their own screening in the hiring process and spent a good amount of time on training as well.

Re: Re: If you really are upset by this you need to relax

Re: If you really are upset by this you need to relax

This upsets me because I find it more intrusive and invasive than any of the other things they've put into place. Seriously, I'd much rather have the enhanced pat-down.

This type of questioning is standard on every flight operated by an Israeli airliner, including domestic flights within Israel. I think the Israelis know a thing or two about security.

But they operate in an environment where the risks are much greater. I might be less opposed to such procedures if we were facing a similar threat level, but we're not. Security should be proportional to the threat.

I will readily admit that the TSA agents I have encountered do not inspire confidence and most are completely untrained do properly perform this type of questioning.

And this is the bit that terrifies me. At least with scanners and pat-downs, they're looking for physical evidence. Either something's there or it's not.

With this behavioral detection, however, we have to trust in the TSA people's subjective judgement -- and that is something the we have very little reason to trust. Now I have to worry about accidentally answering things wrong or in the wrong way and being subject to whatever-the-hell-comes-next when they think you're suspicious.

Re: If you really are upset by this you need to relax

Really?

Does the TSA really think that a few questions will get the bad guys to monologue their evil plans with a few simple questions? I think they must have been watching a comic book based movie marathon when they came up with this plan.

Well, its easy for you to complain about how bad it is to be approached like this and asked what actually are some fairly innocent questions. But what I would be more interested in are your suggestions for better ways to protect against terrorist acts.

Re:

Don't expect any of that here. For the most part, the extent of the TD comments is simply to find fault, not solutions. You can gauge the community's interest/commitment to finding solutions by its participation in Step2.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Abolish the TSA as it is noneffective, always has been, always will be. We are not under threat any more than we have ever been. This is orchestrated fear in order to erode our civil liberties and it is working splendidly.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm so glad that there are people who refuse to be intimidated into sacrificing their rights.

What people can do:
--Refuse to travel by any means involving the TSA or *enhanced* security; don't feed the machine
--If interrogated, refuse to answer any questions
--Do not submit to stop-and-frisk nor any other manner of unlawful search; let them arrest you if necessary

If everybody protested and stood up for their rights in such manner, the TSA would become ancient history. Unfortunately people seem to consider their security theatre more of an inconvenience than a violation, thanks in no small part to media brainwashing. Even so, it's apparent that people are becoming increasingly frustrated with all this nonsense.

Re:

But what I would be more interested in are your suggestions for better ways to protect against terrorist acts.

1) Act as an advocate for people in international dealings, as well as for healthly, multilateral commerce. Stop using economic threats as a means to press for American business entitlements and monopolies in other countries. Treat other countries with egalitarian style respect at least.

2) Stop rogue elements of government agencies from alienating entire segments of our own population, a la the Iran-Contra BS from the 80s

Re: Re:

Re:

I would be more interested in are your suggestions for better ways to protect against terrorist acts.

Step 1 is to stop being so afraid of terrorist acts and put the actual risk into perspective.

Step 2 is realizing that we don't actually need these kinds of measures because the relative risk is tiny.

The real danger that 9/11 demonstrated is using the airplane itself as a weapon. Being able to take over an aircraft and use it like a missile is easy to prevent simply by designing aircraft so that there is no passageway connecting the passenger compartment with the cockpit at all.

Questions to ask and the OpenWatch recorder

I’d like to think that if we shine a light on this (TSA) behavior, the roaches will scatter. Unfortunately, I think we’ll need a very bright light.

To paraphrase the first President Bush, we need to develop a thousand points of light to combat this problem. As a first step, everyone should download the Openwatch audio and video recorder for their phone and turn it on as you approach these Constitution Free zones.

Re: Questions to ask and the OpenWatch recorder

Why not just hang a sign around your neck that says, "I AM AN ASSHOLE" instead? Do you seriously think that the underpaid guy doing his job is the problem? Do you think he's the one who crafted the policy? Go to your Senator or Congressman's office or local DHS office and ask to see a high level person who might actually be equipped to discuss the issue with you and also be senior enough to do something. This bullshit of being a dick to the guy at the bottom of the food chain is self defeating. And while it might make you feel like you're striking a blow for the cause, you really just look like a douchebag and undermine your own cause.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions to ask and the OpenWatch recorder

Re: Re: Questions to ask and the OpenWatch recorder

And here we are. Discussing the topic in a public forum. Multiple minds digesting a very real situation. And you're suggestion? Keep your opinions to yourself until you can talk with someone that, supposedly, both cares and can do something about it? Well, you've a penchant for being a bit of a fruitcake, no?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions to ask and the OpenWatch recorder

We are not referring to states. We are referring to national policies of the federal government.

I'm quite certain that previous to said states "significant changes" of drug law that there were equal amounts of loud objection and reasonable argument. Accepting that finally a platform was made available for the latter. We do not yet have a viable platform therefore any approach deemed appropriate, baring violence, is perfectly acceptable in bringing about some much needed insight into these things we are so clearly in conflict with.

So, no, I do not recognize your exception as justification to now allow an individual, any individual, to express, investigate, illuminate or disagree in general with present policy.

Re: Re:

I have not owned a car in 10 years and walk or ride a bicycle, I do NOT support terrorist's.ours OR theirs

But I bet that you eat, wear clothes, live under a roof, and do all sorts of other things that use oil. So you do indeed support all that comes with our oil addiction. You just support it less than most.

its worked elseware

it was one of the features of the old soviet union to prevent trouble breaking out anywhere in the country, and if internal passports and checkpoint of the soviet union stoped terrorism in that country it MUST be a good thing and needs to be implmented, as best as homeland security and the TSA can do.

Re: Police state.

Re the conventions: Just try to make a statement against whichever political party is controlling (having the convention in) the city you are in...If you are a Democrat, try to put up a political banner criticizing the Republicans and you will be in jail so fast it will make your head spin, assuming you haven't been beaten by the local cops.

You are not allowed to make political statements in Washington DC either - doing so will get you labeled a terrorist.

Another mark of a police state is having to answer questions about exactly where you are going, what are you going to do there, and why are you going there - the TSA does this routinely now even if you are a U.S. citizen merely flying to a different U.S. city. If you refuse, you are definitely getting swabbed and possibly strip searched. Pretty soon you will need your U.S. passport to go from one U.S. city to another.

Re: Re: Police state.

> ...If you are a Democrat, try to put
> up a political banner criticizing the
> Republicans and you will be in jail
> so fast it will make your head spin,
> assuming you haven't been beaten by
> the local cops.

Well, that's just a load of paranoid nonsense. I've been in Tampa all week for the RNC and there are plenty of banners and signs all over town put up by Democrats and pro-Obama voters. None of them are in jail or have been beaten for doing it.

Searched on our honeymoon

My husband and I recently returned from our honeymoon in Seattle and Vancouver. We took a lovely train up the coast from Seattle. I was watching the drug-sniffing dog, because who doesn't love watching a dog, and to my admittedly untrained eye he didn't seem to show any unusual excitement in us. But, moments later, we were shown into a tiny room, ignored for 20 minutes, and then separately given an inquisition into our whereabouts and our plans. This was especially fun and exciting when it turned out my husband was unable to answer any of the hotel questions (I booked the vacation).

Did I mention I have a partial arm tattoo and my husband has long hair?

Yesterday in my Public Speaking class we did an exercise where we all anonymously wrote a fear on a scrap of paper that was then picked to be read at random by a classmate. I wrote "the government" and the majority of the class thought it was a joke.

Everyone subjected to these intrusive questions by the TSA should be friendly and open. Discuss your recent proctologist visit loudly and in great detail. In fact, offer to show them photos. Also, I'm sure the TSA doesn't discriminate against people with hearing problems, so make sure that they speak loudly enough for you to understand, and that they repeat themselves as many times as necessary for you to properly understand them.

Excuse me?

Re: Excuse me?

It's different to be flying within the same country and be asked the same questions. Presumably we already passed any border checkpoints and there is no reason for guilt.

It's a police state act, essentially. They want use different words but they are the same as "Show me your papers!" which, at least according to American media, is what repressive governments have angry men with weapons and the ability to black bag you demand at travel places like the airport or train station.

TSA Crimnals

TSA allows a known pedophile, Thomas Harkins to remain employed as a TSA Supervisor in Philadelphia giving him access to search children. What kind of agency turns a known sex offender loose on children?

TSA. Growing the Police State and destroying the Constitution since 2002. Keep giving your rights away America, soon you won’t have any.

Asperger, anyone?

I have Asperger Syndrome, and other than my few very close friends, I don't like people very much, especially strangers who get too physically close, and I'm just not into casual "how's the weather" conversations. I would appear to be completely suspicious under these circumstances, at least in the twisted, uneducated mind of the average TSA agent. I really do not look forward to the next time I have to go to the airport,

Re: Asperger, anyone?

I have Aspergers too and last year was detected as a suspicious person by a TSA SPOT officer. Since I didn't look the behavioral officer straight in the eye when talking to her and paused before answering questions such as "where do you consider home?", "What hotel are you staying at?", "What are your plans for this trip?", "Why are you going to Las Vegas?", "How do you intend to get to your hotel once you land?", etc. I also had unusual facial expression that alerted her. Thankfully my airline didn't charge me for my missed flight and was able to book me on another flight 6 hours later. I was scared and after all that happened I was pissed since I now had to change my travel plans to accommodate arriving 6 hours later than I planned. Of course they say you can always take the bus or a train but Amtrak doesn't go to Las Vegas and a lot of other cities and I'm not a fan of riding the bus. Eventually the TSA will have VIPR teams at not only bus and train stations but also roadside checkpoints so there really isn't a way to avoid the TSA. Why should US Citizens who are doing nothing wrong have to divulge all kinds of details about their trips to a stranger? Since they detained me and took notes on what I said, will this information be stored indefinitely and if I happen to travel to cities that happen to have targets of interests to terrorists will I be detained for suspicion of terrorism when I have no intentions of carrying out a terrorist attack. What happens if I stay in a hotel that happens to be a target of a terrorist group or is near a target? I know at least one hotel in Las Vegas has been a target of Al Qaeda so you can easily be seen as even more suspicious if you happen to be staying at this hotel. I'm opposed to this and all government intrusion that has been considered to be "in the best interests of national security".

Be what they don't expect...

And THIS is why I wear fangs ;) Throws them off every time! Then when they ask questions, I'm really polite (not that I necessarily tell them everything of course--who does?) and ask them how their day is going, ect. That throws them off even more.Actually, I did the same thing when TSA was doing checkpoints in the DC Metro System--took them by surprise and they didn't know what to do or say.